(Some) New Yorker articles are bogus

I love reading the New Yorker. I have written before about bogus brain games, and about bogus brain training claims. We have published a 10-question checklist to help consumers make informed decisions.All this is to say I was surprised to read the recent New Yorker article titled “Brain games are bogus.” If you are going to make such strong claims, you need to back them up with serious due diligence and analysis, and explain to readers what you can support and what you can’t, so they can make informed decisions, comparing option A to B and to C. Which the writer didn’t even try to do, choosing to tell an entertaining one-sided story, and throwing out the baby with the bath water along the way. (One of the companies mentioned in the article, Cogmed, just released this response.)I would need a few thousand words to dispel the misconceptions and misinformation in the New Yorker article, so I won’t try here (book is coming!). Instead, I encourage readers to read the original article and Cogmed’s response and, above all, to spend time reading in detail what three resources of much higher rigor and importance have to say about cognitive training and brain training, compared to other alternatives available today: Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease and Cognitive Decline (prepared by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for the National Institutes of Health)Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project (prepared by Foresight for the UK government)Can inter­ac­tive media ...
Source: SharpBrains - Category: Neurologists Authors: Tags: Cognitive Neuroscience Health & Wellness Technology Alzheimers-disease Brain-games Brain-Training cogmed cognitive-decline Cognitive-Training foresight interactive media mental capital mental well being National Science Foundatio Source Type: blogs